Countries that have grown rich on the back of high yielding energy sources now want to move to low yielding sources. For example phasing out or taxing coal while subsidising solar. The reasons could be a mix of climate concern, guilt over past indulgence and delusion. Australia is a good example but Germany is an even better example of delusion since they throw many billions of euros at renewables subsidies yet their emissions keep increasing.

We kid ourselves a fair bit by turning off light switches as an energy saving measure, say a kilowatt hour per month. Then we jump in a plane or SUV to travel interstate using thousands of times the energy (10 kwh per litre of fuel) we think we saved with light switches. If transport and home heating are to be electrified replacing gas and oil we'll need much more electricity on demand. Solar panels simply won't be enough.

I'm a small L liberal who thinks mining the reef for its, I believe, treasure trove of lower carbon emitting fuels, would be a good idea!

Which probably puts me as far away from the disingenuous greens as is possible to get!?

And again as a polar opposite as a nuclear power advocate? That said I'm not going to sit here and watch the greens which include family and friends, being unfairly labeled or libeled?

In an ideal world almost everyone would want it to be as the greens do? green forests intersected by wild rivers and where the animals run free? Where you could hold out a hand and have a running free wild lion eat from it? Probably tofu based meat substitute?

We'd reinvent the forge and the spinning wheel and handcrafts; and all live in ancient caravans towed by equally ancient gas guzzlers.

We'd still need a couple of solar panels to power the absolutely essential laptop or the mobile phone.

We'd burn dung to cook rudimentary meals, bake bread etc. Except where we could consume it raw? (Most of it, peel me a grape honey)

In a hunter gather world we'd gather in competition with every protected species of herbivore, or omnivore, while the remaining carnivores would ruthlessly and constantly hunt all the others!

We'd survive by settling down protected by the metal walls of our vans or palisades of thorn enlaced barriers?

We'd carry every drop of water needed to drink cook or bathe in and recycle almost everything, except the corpses of our elders who'd be buried under rock cairns to avoid having pass through the digestive tracts of the meat eaters!

Even so some of us would be caught out on any one of our harvesting expeditions, with the slow young and old regularly sacrificed. Bows and arrows and spears would return for protection, as would companion animals?

At least until drought and famine once again walked the land and survival at any cost kicked in as our natural instinctive behavior?

Ah well it was a nice dream while it lasted?
Alan B.

Teleologically,one might argue just as plausibly that the “ human energy ladder” has meant increasingly efficient means of destruction culminating in the Bomb and extinction.

In any land regularly ravaged by drought? All that's needed is the intelligent application of water!

And that now includes desalinated water made affordable by recent dutch innovation, which quite massively increases the recovery of potable water at around quarter of the price of older technologies.

Why? well simply put, plant life, but especially harvested crops fix Co2!

Even so the movement of water uphill and against gravity can be energy laden and therefore costly! And only affordable with cheaper than coal options, which include thorium reactors, factory assembled inherently safe pebble reactors that can be trucked and used anywhere, even where there's no water; given the fact that helium is the coolant.

Then there's very large scale solar thermal arrays, which are now proven to be able to successfully compete with coal in rollout costs and as peak demand generators, thanks to recent innovation.

Finally there's the jewel in the crown of alternative endlessly sustainable solutions, which combine two Aussie innovations, the twin tank method of producing bladder stored biogas (methane) which when scrubbed, can be used in another Aussie innovation, the ceramic fuel cell!

This particular combination produces mostly pristine water vapor as the exhaust; plus endless free hot water; and the lowest costing energy, given an energy coefficient of around 80% (reticulated coal fired power managing just 20% in comparison, which thereby makes coal a comparative four times more expensive.)
Alan B.

Viv, are you being deliberately disingenuous? Or are you really that stupid?

It's true that "since the dawn of time, Earth has seen continual geological and climatic change" – but only during the mass extinction events was the speed of that change anywhere near its current speed. There's extremely strong evidence that this change is the result of changes humans have made to the composition of the atmosphere. Why is that so hard to comprehend? And it's neither made governments more powerful nor added an extra global layer of government; nor is there any serious chance that it will.

Putting restrictions on things isn't evidence of wanting humans to stop them, it's an acknowledgement of the fact that they have negative effects which should be controlled. Many activities are more efficient when regulated. Are you really unaware of the problems unregulated farming, forestry, fishing, grazing and mining have caused? Or the smog problem that large cities have had, and in some cases still have?

And if you've already forgotten why caution is needed with nuclear power, I suggest you watch the latest episode of Foreign Correspondent on http://iview.abc.net.au

(tbc)

Viv (continued)

Nobody wants us to "step backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power". But solar cells (which were only invented in the 20th century and didn't become a viable energy source until the 21st century) are not comparable to using solar energy for drying food. You've made the mistake of basing your opinion on your own energy ladder rhetoric instead of looking at what's best in context.

"They have yet to explain how our massive fleet of planes, trains, tractors, harvesters, trucks, road trains, container-ships and submarines will run on windmills, treadmills, windlasses, solar energy, and water wheels."
Then let me inform you:
Windmills and solar power will generate electricity. Some of that electricity will be used to charge batteries (for there will be a lot more electric vehicles) and some of it will be used to synthesise fuel. And of course some of it will be used directly in homes, offices, shops and factories. Water wheels (in the form of hydroelectric turbines) will be used to provide power when demand exceeds solar and wind output.

BTW I don't know why you included windlasses on your list. Aren't those just winches? And treadmills are also irrelevant: we have abundant power from the sun and the wind. Not all countries are as fortunate as we are, and some would be better off using nuclear power. But if they want to avoid nuclear it will be technically possible, though very costly.